May 2009

May 31, 2009

No country in the world inspires alarmism the way Pakistan
does. By its very definition alarmist perspectives have an element of
exaggeration or overstatement. However, when someone of the caliber of Ahmed
Rashid writes the following passage one has to pay attention. All of us,
including yours truly, have for a long time wondered and speculated over the
what-if scenarios of the worst kind that Pakistan will soon have to confront or
is already confronting. Rashid has a piece in the New York Review of Books’
June 11 issue that offers what is the likeliest conclusion of all the frenzied
prognostications.

Here is what Rashid writes, “Pakistan is close to the brink,
perhaps not to a meltdown of the government, but to a permanent state of
anarchy, as the Islamist revolutionaries led by the Taliban and their many
allies take more territory, and state power shrinks. There will be no mass
revolutionary uprising like in Iran in 1979 or storming of the citadels of
power as in Vietnam and Cambodia; rather we can expect a slow, insidious,
long-burning fuse of fear, terror, and paralysis that the Taliban have lit and
that the state is unable, and partly unwilling, to douse.”

The fuse that Rashid talks about has to be a particularly
long and slow-burning one because when you look at the history of Pakistan you
get the feeling that it has been on ever since its creation in 1947. For
whatever reasons the country has always given the vibes of an entity eternally churning
with profound restiveness. My visits to the country in the 1990s, although
overwhelmingly hospitable, could not disguise the innate feeling of uncertainty
that leapt out ever so frequently in many conversations. It was like meeting a
highly excitable person at a street corner whose next move you could not
anticipate.

Even I had promised to take my wife to her to a Broadway
play and dinner date afterwards on a Gulfstream jet, but it did not quite work
out. We concluded it might be wiser to pay this month’s mortgage instead. No such
dilemma for President Barack Obama who took his wife Michelle to New York on
Saturday on a Gulfstream jet.

“I am taking my wife to New York City,” the president said
in a statement, “because I promised her during the campaign that I would take
her to a Broadway show after it was all finished.” The two dined at Blue Hill,
a restaurant at Greenwich Village, before catching ‘Joe Turner’s Come and Gone’,
the Tony-nominate play by August Wilson.

As quoted by The Daily Beast, the presidential clarification
came after the Republican National Committee said in a statement: “Putting
on a show: Obamas wing it into the city for an evening out, while another
iconic American company prepares for bankruptcy.” The iconic company in
question is General Motors.

If I were the president of a country going through its worst
financial crisis in decades, I would think twice and thrice and forever before
taking my wife to a Broadway play and dinner on an official government aircraft
to another city some 230 miles away. Presidential visits are by their very
nature expensive even if he chooses to go to a neighborhood burger joint. While
we are all for the president and the first lady enjoying the freedoms that any
young and successful couple in this country would be able to, what inhibits
those freedoms is that they cannot be and appear to be profligate. Of course,
there is nothing unique about this president indulging in some bit of
extravagance. All previous presidents have done so, especially the last one
known for long vacations.

I do not know what kind of rules govern such matters but I
suppose it would be a great gesture to pay the government for the evening. If
not the whole bill at least some of it to set a precedent.

I am thankful to President Obama to afford me this
opportunity to engage in this cheap shot on a Sunday morning when I did not
have much to write off the cuff.

May 30, 2009

For a country where education constitutes its third largest
export industry, it would seem self-defeating to treat hate attacks against
foreign students with apathy. Australia has witnessed a spate of what seems
like racially charged attacks against Indian students in recent weeks. In
Melbourne in particular, where there are some 35,000 Indian students, after
reports of “curry bashing” incidents recently, all that the local police could come up
with was a piece of advice that told Indian students not to speak “loudly” in
their native tongues and not to flaunt their iPods and laptops.

In the past few days, there have been more attacks in
Melbourne and in two particular cases students were wounded grievously. In
fact, one of them, Shravan Kumar, is battling for his life. With the emergence of Australia as a
preferred destination for higher education in the aftermath of 9/11 and
restrictions in the United States, the country down under runs the serious risk
of losing out on an important source of revenues. According to The Australian
newspaper Australia earned $ 15.5 billion last year from a total of 430,000 students.
Of these, between 80,000 and 90,000 are Indian students. I would think that Australia
can do a little more that tell the Indian students not to speak in their native
languages or flaunt their gadgets.

In a related development India’s most admired actor Amitabh
Bachchan says he is “faced with a dilemma of some intense proportions” over
whether or not to accept an honorary doctorate from the Queensland University
of Technology, Brisbane in Australia in the midst of such attacks. Many Indian news
websites treated this as an important enough story to either lead the day with
on Saturday or give it a prominent mention. I would not like to debate the
merit of treating this story so prominently. While the media made it out as if
Bachchan had turned down the doctorate, reading Bachchan’s popular blog (http://bigb.bigadda.com/) it seemed a
little less certain.

In seeking his readers’ opinion on what to do, Bachchan
wrote, “I mean no disrespect to the Institution that honors me, but under the
present circumstances, where citizens of my own country are subjected to such
acts of inhuman horror, my conscience does not permit me to accept this
decoration from a country that perpetrates such indignity to my fellow
countrymen. And here is where I need your inputs. Am I right in thinking so.
And if yes then is my act of refusing the honor justified or not. I shall put
this up as my POLL question and shall feel obliged if EF (extended family) can
indicate to me their opinion, for me to be able to take the correct action.”

The rise of India as one of the world’s two fastest growing
economies gives the country considerable leverage while dealing with issues
such as overt or subtle racism against its own citizens around the world. It is
arguable whether three decades ago India’s strong expression of outrage against
such attacks would have prompted a serious response from Australia.

Meanwhile, Baljinder Singh, a 25-year-old student who was
attacked in Melbourne, was quoted by NDTV as saying, "My advice to every
Indian student now who wants to come to Australia is please don't come and
there's no life here."That’s the
kind of PR disaster that Australia needs to worry about if it wants to
continue to make money out of education.

P.S.: Amitabh Bachchan has since formally announced his decision not to accept the honorary doctorate.

May 29, 2009

Stalin and Stalin (M K Stalin's photo as it appears on www.mkstalin.net and Joseph Stalin as on Wikipedia)

When it came to choosing a name for his son in March of
1953, for Dr. Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi it was a no-brainer. He named him Stalin.
Born into the lap of the Dravidian movement of southern India whose leaders
were captivated by the statist grandiosity of the Soviet Union and communism the
two most popular names for the newly born children of the era were Stalin and
Lenin. He was “bestowed” the name “oblivious to the fact that this political
connotation would also ultimately lead to a political career.”

Four days after M K Stalin was born on March 1, 1953, his
inspiration Joseph Stalin died. As this journalist and playwright, who is the
heir apparent to one of Tamil Nadu’s most consequential political dynasties,
rises to become the state’s deputy chief minister I could not resist checking
out his biography. Here are some excerpts from Stalin’s own website http://www.mkstalin.net/biography.php

There is no point in my saying anything.

“The leader of the Dravidian movement Periyar E.V.Ramaswamy
was greatly fascinated by the communist ideals after his visit to the Soviet
Union. It soon caught on in Tamil Nadu and people started naming their children
after the great leaders of the Soviet Union. The most popular were Lenin and
Stalin and the communism wave even led to children, being named after Moscow
and Russia. Consequently, the leader of the DMK party Dr.Kalaignar bestowed the
name Stalin to his son oblivious to the fact that this political connotation
would also ultimately lead to a political career.

Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi, once explained the rationale in
naming his sons. He said that he named his eldest son as Muthu in fond memory
of his father Muthuvelar, second son as Azhagiri in tribute to a stalwart of
the Dravidian Movement Pattukottai Azhagirisamy third son as ‘Stalin’ after the
communist leader of Soviet Union Joseph Stalin who believed in the ideology of
communism and whose name also translated as ‘The Man of Steel’ and his last son
as Tamilarasu to express his affinity for Tamil language.

The name ‘Stalin’ had not always been easy for him. While
seeking admission in a reputed institution, Church Park convent in Anna Salai,
Chennai, the authorities shuddered at the name of the revolutionary and
insisted that the name of the boy be changed in order to be admitted in the
school. Undeterred by this, his father Kalaignar simply stated that he’ll
rather change the school than his son’s name. Eventually Stalin for admission
in Madras Christian College school in Chetpet. Stalin in Russian language means
‘Man of Steel’, and M.K.Stalin has since been living up to his name, earning
yet another title - The Lieutenant (Thalapathi) of the Dravidian movement!”

May 28, 2009

It took no brilliance for anyone, including this writer, to
foreshadow the distinct likelihood that former senior U.N. official Shashi
Tharoor, who narrowly missed being its secretary-general, will be inducted as a
junior foreign minister of India. Of course, in India’s permanently quirky
politics it is always hazardous to predict anything, particularly that which seems
obvious.

Tharoor, who won handsomely in the country’s just concluded
parliamentary elections from the Thiruvananthapuram, is expected to bring his
real world experience as an international diplomat to his new assignment. It is
quite possible that given his familiarity with the U.N. system and the West,
his talents would be utilized by his boss, Foreign Minister S M Krishna in
those areas.

India would be well served if it employs Tharoor’s wide
network of contacts on the world stage to keep up behind the scene diplomacy at
a time when China is embarked on a long-term strategy to not just remain a
decisive player but consolidate its position as a geostrategic counter to the
United States.

In an interview with Manish Chand of the IANS before he was
appointed junior foreign minister, Tharoor had said, "We need a realistic
calculation of our national interests. Well, people say it's pro-US, pro-West
or pro-Israel, but they are all meaningless labels. The only pro any of us can
be is to be pro India." That has been the guiding principle of India’s
foreign policy since the country’s independence, including the period during
which it cast its weight behind the Soviet Union between the 1950s and the
1970s. Notwithstanding the ridicule of being a Soviet satellite India’s foreign
policy wonks saw self-interest in following that path. From the mid 1980s
onward the country began decidedly shifting towards the West as it began
opening up its economy under then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and recognized
the importance of economic-cum-diplomatic engagement with the West.

In the past two decades or so New Delhi has continued to
pursue what it perceives as foreign policy that revolves around the country’s
interests rather than any doctrinaire or ideological thinking. Tharoor ought to
be excited to have been inducted during the times so fraught with
transformative challenges.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has inducted a total 79
ministers in his new cabinet. What it means that a little over every third Member
of Parliament (MP) out of the total 262 that constitute his United Progress
Alliance (UPA) is now a minister of some kind. A more troubling example of
political largesse would be harder to find.

In an incident symbolic of the unseemly haste to become a
minister among the new MPs, V Narayanasamy from Puducherry began taking the
oath of office even before President Pratibha Patil could call on him. The president
had to say “wait, wait, wait” to stop Narayanswamy from running ahead of the
rest.

Bloated cabinets are a direct consequence of India’s
coalition politics which have ruled the country for over a decade and half.
Since no national party is able to claim a simple majority in parliament on its
own strength, it has to depend upon several regional parties whose lust for
power is on full display as they go about ensuring cabinet positions for the
chosen ones out of their handful of MPs. One could argue that this is a
compelling example of how representative democracy should function. But then
one could also argue that cabinet formation is a form of employment guarantee
scheme for MPs.

The Republican Party in the United States, which froths at
its mouth in outrage on a daily basis at the expansion of government, would
become disoriented with incomprehension if it were in India. In some sense it
is impossible for any prime minister to avoid giant cabinets in a coalition
government because coalitions are formed with the singular purpose of sharing
the loot after the elections. No attempt is made to finesse the sordid deal-making
that attends the immediate aftermath of a victory. To that extent it is an open
system, except that the specifics of the deals are generally hidden from the
public.

As I had mentioned earlier this deal-making is
unapologetically about grabbing the most lucrative of government ministries and
not about wanting to make improve the quality of governance. The latter tends
to be an unintended consequence of all the politicking.

There is another device that coalition governments use to
adjust to the political fault lines which invariably start surfacing midterm.
That device is cabinet reshuffling which is used by any prime minister to address
new power centers which may have emerged. All in all coalition governments in
India, as I suppose anywhere in the world, are broadly about stopping restive
partners from whipping out their daggers from time to time. Considering that
Singh’s Congress Party controls 206 seats out of the mandatory 262 to form a
simple majority government, things are likely to be relatively easy this time
around.

May 27, 2009

Shashi Tharoor is probably happy that he failed to make it
as the United Nations General-Secretary. His assertive victory by 99,998 votes
in India’s parliamentary elections was an impressive enough transition to a much
more consequential public life. That has now been topped with his appointment
as a minister of state or a junior minister. Although Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh has not yet announced which particular department Tharoor will be
responsible for, it is conceivable that he would serve under India’s new
Foreign Minister Somanahalli Mallaiah Krishna.

While his rise as the
U.N. boss would have surely come with its own unique opportunities to make a
difference in the world, his decision to take the plunge into India’s
tumultuous politics could turn out to be far more effective in what he seeks to
do with in the future. Notwithstanding that it is an obvious choice, the Singh
government should give him a position in the foreign ministry to help Krishna,
who is untested in the intricate world of international diplomacy and could do
with someone like Tharoor to navigate through it.

Tharoor’s training as a top U.N. bureaucrat is bound to help
in keeping the mechanics of foreign policy smooth and focused. It is possible
that by the time this post is out he would have been assigned a department.

May 26, 2009

The celebrations over the total decimation of the Tamil
Tigers in Sri Lanka could be short-lived if the UN Human Rights Council manages
to vote in favor of a special session to investigate charges of war crimes
against Colombo.

"It is hoped that the holding of this special session
will contribute towards the cause of peace", the Council’s president
Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi was quoted as saying in an official press release.
"The Human Rights Council cannot be silent when innocent civilians are
caught up in armed conflicts. The international community must strive to
deliver justice to victims of human rights violations wherever they occur and
ensure that those found guilty of such crimes are held accountable for their
actions", he added.

Colombo has a wholly new perspective on the issue. Dayan
Jayatilleka, Sri Lanka's ambassador and special representative to the UN in
Geneva, was quoted by the IANS’ M R
Narayan Swamy as alleging that a section
of the West had attempted to prevent the military defeat of the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and save at least a section of its leadership.

Jayatilleka went so far as to say that the LTTE enjoyed
patronage in some Western countries.

Sri Lanka had faced intense international pressure to scale
down its military operations against the LTTE given that they were seriously
disrupting civilian life and were often at the cost of human rights. On it part
Colombo argued that enough care was taken to make a distinction between the
separatist guerillas and civilians. Inevitably though, a large number of
civilians died in the operations which eventually eliminated the entire LTTE
leadership, including its feared chief Vellupillai Prabhakaran.

If the charges of war crimes stick, they could seriously
undermine Sri Lanka’s polity at a time when it is trying to put the 30-year-old
ethnic conflict behind. Colombo can justifiably argue that the world generally
maintained an indifferent silence as the LTTE went about its relentlessly
violent campaign in the past two and half decades that claimed close to 100,000
lives.

May 25, 2009

This morning I posted a short entry about how my blog on May
7 and Ahsan Butt’s blog http://fiverupees.blogspot.com/
on May 17 used a common expression of “take your son to work day” in describing
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari bringing his son Bilawal to the White House
summit recently. The entry was posted before I communicated with Ahsan, who presumed
that I implied plagiarism on his part despite having communicated via email.

There has been some back and forth between Ahsan and I via
email, extracts of which he has reproduced on his blog while denouncing my 'dishonesty.' It is not my natural disposition to be melodramatic and hence I am
going to let his angry response slide by.

As far as I am concerned I accept his explanation that our
using the same expression was merely a coincidence and that’s that. I removed
my entry the moment I noticed Ahsan’s email this afternoon. It makes no
difference to me whether he wants to retain his rebuttal on his blog.

I respect Ahsan’s sensitivity about intellectual property
and conclude this futile discussion. For the record the entry was posted before
I communicated with Ahsan.

A Deccan Chargers cheerleader performing at the Indian Premier League. (IANS Photo)

The Indian Premier League (IPL), which pioneered the
exuberant T20 version of cricket, has triumphed in South Africa with tens of thousands
of fans packing the final match at the New Wanderers Stadium in Johannesburg.

Abhishek Roy of the IANS reports: “The fireworks, gyrating
cheerleaders, and DJs belting out popular Hindi numbers, made IPL a heady
cocktail of cricket and entertainment that was put together in a matter of
three weeks.”

In India’s pantheon of gods movie stars and cricketers are
two relatively modern additions. The IPL management has the business savvy to
combine the two and spice it up with some skin. Thrilling cricket, throbbing cheerleaders and thirsty fans; it is bound to work and it did. Read more here.